THE AGE OP CREDULITY.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20173, 27 February 1931, Page 13

THE AGE OP CREDULITY.

TO THE' EDITOH " 0? THE PRESS Sir,—l am truly sorry for Mr Pearse" that lie- has flUowfed his mind, >to got into suc]i extraordinary attitude. He. - cannot/from' showing,, got rid of eteraity (no sensible person can) but lie prefers ,an eternity of inanimate niatfprto an' eternal Supremo feeing. Jjpt us see how it wprks out.l In Mr. Pearge's case tie mind .will not be able to, get. back further than what the sky 'at present creates, Viz.#'this earth and .solar'system! starting as a little nebulous . claud ia theinilmty of space. There is .no master, , so everything is left to chap.ce. We will bp liberal and give liifn billions upon, billions, of similar ages since this- little' nebulosity reached its prggdjnt 4j:age by chance., IPor chance cannot always progress, the ,odda of more directions than one' in. consecutive'order, in the exact direction' Tecfiure'd to. bring a]i)out advancement, nivgt £e many billions of chances that wenf wrong to one tfidnco'tliat was tight, 'myst; have been- milUt>ns f ' of time® in which , ,^|i'an«c/'Teceiv6'dJd- g'riat' sfet-back and- , chaos pace|j

I more, and' yet Mr Fearse believes that pat last chance amongst many other miracles hit ufcon life, and evolved laws without a,lawgiver, and then very I considerately annihilated itself to keep the,brain of man that chance had created from being rude and throwing stones at it in its old age. What stupendous faith in chance; no wonder gambling is in the human blood. What a miracle of steadfast belief that marvel* lous chance has done away with itself by creating fixed laws of Nature that have no master.'

On the other hand how much faith does belief in a Supreme Being require of a person? First of all a finite being will, humbly realise that, as he is not God, he cannot possibly expect to understand the..lnfinite Mind,, and all its workings. Perhaps one of the greatest helps to grasping the idea ; of an Eternal Being will come to him who . realises that time is a necessary limitation of the finite mind. But with God time present, past, and future/' may be all as one and the same thing, Mr Pearse's eternity may be best illustrated as irregular line tending more or less( in one direction. Somewhere along that line began chance to work out the solar systemj ending with /fixed laws of Nature that have no longer chance, for their master.* But goodness only knows; how soon chance might once more want to take control' and rule 1 things. The Deist's eternity can 'best be* likened to a perfect circle so that no one can say where the circle began nor where it ends. Some unfortunate finite minds must' know how and when and where the circle began and at what ppint time was introduced when "In the-beginning (of time) God created the heaven anct't h e earth"; and - because no other finite mind can 1 tell them they would sooner trust their intellects to their god "chance." Perhaps chance was tinkind and left some ingredient out.— Yours, etc.,

P. H. PRITCHETT. February 26th, "1931:

TO T.&E* EDITOR OF TUB PRESS ' £jir,-—Mr Pearse, in his letter of the 24th, says that my attempt to prove the unreality of unemployment by showing the- cause does not prove - its non-exist-ence. If reality is-something having afull and absolute, being of itself, how can a inan be really unemployed when ho is wholly employed in looking for a job? < - • The balance of his letter certainlyupsets his statement'of fixed laws having no master.' When'a/Hijul^medicine* maty gave a bottl© o| twlnared, -ditch.-

water to a nativq and cured him- in spite of the medicine, where is the fixed law here 1 It, rather goes to prove thft contention of Christian Science that it is not the drag that cures but the patient's faith in' it. Mr Pearse askr, if Nature lias a master who created Nature, who created the'masterf He further say? that exact' science starts with matter and law and does not attempt to explain the beginning' of something that probably had no beginning. Why is it necessary- to know who created the master? Why v must the beginning of the master be known 1 He adds' that exact science starts with matter and law, and evolution explains the origin of worlds that prc|bably had no beginning. One would not expect such a mix-up of probabilities from a man who talks of exact science. ( ' « Mr Pearse sayja he suspects that Mr Mee is a man of letters- who is out of his depth in the field' of science. If' science is the truth about things, this is the most contradictory sample o£ truth, I haverstruck. —Yours, etc.,

A. H. WHEELEE, February 26th, 1931. v

, TO THE ' EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,ln his lptter in your issue of February 2oth,' Mr Pearse asks the following question: "If Nature has a Master, who created Nature, who created this Master of Nature?" The -theistic answer to this question is: "Nobody created Him. • He had no beginning." I always considered that the -theory of a creator; consisted of the idea that lie had no beginning. In his pamphlet, "Why 1 am not a Christian," Bertrand . Russell, ■ when arguing that matter is eternal, declares that '/the idea that things must have; a .beginning is really due to the poverty of our. imagination," So, when Mr Pearse asks, "Who created this Master of. Nature?" we reply, "The idea that the Creator must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of Mr Pearse's imagination." —Yours, etfc., " > W. PRATT. Riccarton, February 26th, 1931.

/ TO THE EDITOR or THE PKPSS. v » Sir, —Mr, Pearse's further treatise on the Modern scientific conception of Nature . still leaves mo -very unconvinced.

Assuming for tho moment that Nature Jia»'no designer, he asks me to .believe .tho t. in the case of, our own planet it evolved automatically from its primeval cljaoa, ha « fixed law

(author unknown) t9 its present state of wonderful efficiency and- marvellous accuracy of the laws governing all its seasons and herbs and animals. Mah evolved also, and by« some mysterious chance was equipped with a mind aild brain so far superior to the • animals that he was able to ■ reason and form ideas for himself and ,ws® literally able to beat Nature at her own game, and by selection of plants and animals, breed whatever types he desired. That is to say that Man, born of Nature, is superior to Nature, and whereas poor old Nature has to stay as' an automaton, Man can conceive ideas, form judgments, and ,rule witb purpose behind his rule. To put it briefly, no man has yet • been able to evolve something greater than his own wondrous .personality, rnd I would also say, by the feamo reasoning, that neither could Nature, of her' 6wn automatic evolution, produce fK>nothing greater than herself. The , only r aUernative is a supreme Designer, greater by far than either Nature or pian. Mr Pearse asks who designed thft Designer, or whether He just happened. If Mr Pearse were able to explain tb« beginnings of: the universes in space, from the start of eternity, •if such a thing were possible,; perhaps T could explain the beginning of their but our minds cannot deal with such things, and it is not for, us to know all things, r In conclusion, I would quote a series of suppositions which: we must needs believe-Out of nothing _ nothing, comes. Without a cause, nothing happens. Without a purpose nothing' is fashioned. Without power, no; order is maintained. Without a mind, nothing can be conceived; 'Without a will, no law can be upheld.—Yours, etc., BE "REASONABLE. February 26th, 1931.

[With Mr Pearse's reply, which should be, brief, this- correspondence must cease.—Ed., The Press.]